Purpose

[heusdens]

What is the purpose of a cat?

[RuroumiKenshin]

Hesudens, I'm sure there is some philosophical objective behind this question?

Anyhow, a cat (like other pets) helps lower one's blood pressure because pet owners/cat owners calm down faster than people who don't have pets.

[steppenwolf]

owning a cat is a philosophical exercise in loving unconditionally a being technologically and intellectually far inferior to yourself while being completely submissive to it. my cat is possibly the only 'person' able to interupt me in the middle of a good book/new scientist and somehow end up being smothered in kisses, pathetic really, i have no will power [:)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Hesudens, I'm sure there is some philosophical objective behind this question?

Anyhow, a cat (like other pets) helps lower one's blood pressure because pet owners/cat owners calm down faster than people who don't have pets.

Ok. Your way of answering is that a cat has a purpose to us.
Helping to lower the blood pressure...

But what is the purpose of a cat outside of human purpose.

Wouldn't a cat have purpose:
- to itself? A cat can gie birth to cats, so a cat is a purpose to itself.
- to other animals, to nature?

[Another God]

to eat, reproduce and be merry.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Another God
to eat, reproduce and be merry.

This fits to the definition of the purpose of many animals. What is specific for the cat?

If it is the purpose of a cat to eat, reproduce and be merry, why isn't it
- a dog?
- a horse?

Somehow there is something missing in your explenation.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
This fits to the definition of the purpose of many animals. What is specific for the cat?

If it is the purpose of a cat to eat, reproduce and be merry, why isn't it
- a dog?
- a horse?

Somehow there is something missing in your explenation.

The purpose of a cat is to inspire silly questions that can't be answered, like what is the purpose of this thread. :0)

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?
To draw attention to the fact that it's a cat and to illustrate the diversity of the Universe. Aside from the fact that it holds the copyright to the "cat's meow."

And let's not forget a cat has three names ... the name his master calls him, his scientific name, and the name that nobody knows but the cat himself. These are the three degrees which correspond to reality as well.

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?

That's like asking what the purpose of one's existence is.

[dav2008]

Thats exactly like asking what ones existance is.

[wimms]

purpose of Shrödinger's cat is to cause amusement and horror in those who believe it, and, huh, in mice.
That pretty much sums it up, imo.[6)]

[Another God]

lap warmer?

[Mentat]

Well, I can't stand cats. They bother me. However, your question is not related to my personal feelings about cats so...

The purpose of cats is exactly the same as that of any other animal. If you are Biblically religious, that purpose is to bring glory to Him that created them. If you are coming from purely scientific standpoint, then they don't really have "purpose" as purpose is a metaphysical concept that has no bearing on the natural world, except in the case of sentient beings.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The purpose of a cat is to inspire silly questions that can't be answered, like what is the purpose of this thread. :0)

The thread is about exploring what we mean with "purpose". Is there any purpose related to the existence of a cat?

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?

You'll have to ask the cat.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
To draw attention to the fact that it's a cat and to illustrate the diversity of the Universe.

Draw attention to who, and illustrate to who?

Cat's are assumed to be existent long before mankind came into existence. And the coming into existence of mankind was not a "sure thing" at that time. Therefore these can't be possible explenations for the purpose of the cat.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you are coming from purely scientific standpoint, then they don't really have "purpose" as purpose is a metaphysical concept that has no bearing on the natural world, except in the case of sentient beings.

I tend to agree with this. The only purpose of a cat I can think of is that the cat has a purpose to itself, and came into existence because of the evolutionary conditions that turned the predecessor of the cat into a cat like animal. The cat therefore fulfilled the purpose of being better adapted to it's environment, and was therefore able to reproduce itself.

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, I can't stand cats. They bother me. However, your question is not related to my personal feelings about cats so...

I have a cat. He's morbidly obese. [:(]

If you are coming from purely scientific standpoint, then they don't really have "purpose" as purpose is a metaphysical concept that has no bearing on the natural world, except in the case of sentient beings.

Well, I don't really agree with that. Questions about the "purpose" or "function" of this or that are asked and answered in biology all the time, and not surprisingly, such questions help us capture certain patterns of relations in the subject matter that otherwise we would have missed. I'm sure you'll agree, for example, that one can safely say that wings are for flying (that is, the purpose of wings is to provide flight), and that such a statement explains something of scientific import (i.e. why there is selection for wings).

One can similarly ascribe a functional role to cats, a role that they play in some ecological schema. For example, if the presence of cats controls the population of mice in an environment, we might rationalize the presence of cats by saying that cats are for controlling the population of mice, and this would explain something of scientific import (i.e. why there are cats).

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Draw attention to who, and illustrate to who?

Cat's are assumed to be existent long before mankind came into existence. And the coming into existence of mankind was not a "sure thing" at that time. Therefore these can't be possible explenations for the purpose of the cat.
What are you saying cats just came about aimlessly? And, that this whole universe exists for the same purpose, aimlessly? Then does that not also imply that you, as an aimless so-and-so, have no business whatsover, trying to persuade the rest of us aimless so-and-so's, how purposeful you are and how intelligent you are, by presenting such an entirely aimless idea?

... i.e., draw attention to the fact that it exists and is an integral part of reality. And becomes witnessable to whomever or whatever wishes to observe it.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are you saying cats just came about aimlessly? And, that this whole universe exists for the same purpose, aimlessly? Then does that not also imply that you, as an aimless so-and-so, have no business whatsover, trying to persuade the rest of us aimless so-and-so's, how purposeful you are and how intelligent you are, by presenting such an entirely aimless idea?

You didn't read my posts very well. My argument was that some see the "purpose of the cat" only in terms of human purpose. Which can't be an explenation for the reasons I gave. A cat might be seen as having purpose to human beings, but that can not be the reason there are cats, because cats existed long before mankind came into being.

Further I argued that the only purpose (in sofar one can meaningfully adress purpose to something in nature, and not get caught up in metaphysicist conceptions) one can adress to the existence and apearance of a cat, lies in evolutionairy 'reasons' for the cat to develop from it's predecessors. The cat fitted better in the environment, had better ways of reproduction, then it's predecessors.

As for the existence of the universe, however, there does not exist a ground for giving any reason for it's existence. This is just because there is no alternative to an existing universe. The universe can not fail to exist.

This isssue is further treated in the thread The Fundamental Question. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876).

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
You didn't read my posts very well. My argument was that some see the "purpose of the cat" only in terms of human purpose. Which can't be an explenation for the reasons I gave. Further I argued that the only purpose (in sofar one can do that, and not get caught up in metaphysicist conceptions) one can adress to the existence and apearance of a cat, lies in evolutionairy 'reasons' for the cat to develop from it's predecessors.
But ultimately what it boils down to is, is there a purpose for "us" being here or isn't there? Outside of the "randomness" of evolution of course. Do you believe life is just a "random occurrence?"

But then again how can that be possible when everything "evolves" towards the sun?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
As for the existence of the universe, however, there does not exist a ground for giving any reason for it's existence. This is just because there is no alternative to an existing universe. The universe can not fail to exist.
Then why do we seem to have the fundamental need to question it? Are you saying something arises out of nothing here?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then why do we seem to have the fundamental need to question it

Why do we question things at all? Without that capacity and possibility to question things, this forum would not exist, cause humans would not have established philosophy then.

Are you saying something arises out of nothing here?

Quite the contrary.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But ultimately what it boils down to is, is there a purpose for "us" being here or isn't there?

There is a purpose for us, because we can put meaning and purpose in our lives, more as any other living being can. Although we developed from nature, we are the only species that realy has it's existence in it's own hands, and can overcome limitations of nature.
We can excercise more power as our human bodies can, because we can built tools which have almost unlimited power. etc.


Outside of the "randomness" of evolution of course. Do you believe life is just a "random occurrence?"

The material world has randomness of course. And even our lives contain much forms of randomness. The wife you meet and get married to, have children with... it can well be that you and her meeting was just a random occurence which could or could not have taken place.

But there is not just randomness, there are also patterns that can be seen, and which are not totally random. It is important to see that.



But then again how can that be possible when everything "evolves" towards the sun?

Only plants evolve towards the sun. Or what did you mean by this?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Why do we question things at all? Without that capacity and possibility to question things, this forum would not exist, cause humans would not have established philosophy then.Is philosophy something which is man made or, something which has always been?


There is a purpose for us, because we can put meaning and purpose in our lives, more as any other living being can. Although we developed from nature, we are the only species that realy has it's existence in it's own hands, and can overcome limitations of nature.
We can excercise more power as our human bodies can, because we can built tools which have almost unlimited power. etc.Then does that mean everything exists to serve "our purpose," including the cat? And like the cat, we act totally out of "self-interest?"


The material world has randomness of course. And even our lives contain much forms of randomness. The wife you meet and get married to, have children with... it can well be that you and her meeting was just a random occurence which could or could not have taken place.

But there is not just randomness, there are also patterns that can be seen, and which are not totally random. It is important to see that.
Are you familiar with synchronistic events? I've had any number of them happen to me which, when taken by themselves don't mean a whole lot. But, when they begin to form a pattern you begin to take notice, perhaps even write a book about it, hmm ... This is why I for one don't believe things happen by random. Although I will amend that and say yes they do, except I believe there's an overall sense of purpose behind it.


Only plants evolve towards the sun. Or what did you mean by this?But if plants didn't exist, neither would anything else, in which respect we all evolve with the plants. We are also dependent upon the sun, for without it we would all perish. In which case the sun is a component to our evolution as well.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is philosophy something which is man made or, something which has always been?

What do you suggest? That before mankind was there, the apes, or the plants were philosophising? I don't think so. Philosophy is definately an invention of humans.



Then does that mean everything exists to serve "our purpose," including the cat? And like the cat, we act totally out of "self-interest?"

The existence of anything can be determined by us to fullfill a purpose, either to or within nature itself, or to us. Besides mankind, purpose does not exist.


Are you familiar with synchronistic events? I've had any number of them happen to me which, when taken by themselves don't mean a whole lot. But, when they begin to form a pattern you begin to take notice, perhaps even write a book about it, hmm ... This is why I for one don't believe things happen by random. Although I will amend that and say yes they do, except I believe there's an overall sense of purpose behind it.

But this just shows how our cognition works....


But if plants didn't exist, neither would anything else, in which respect we all evolve with the plants. We are also dependent upon the sun, for without it we would all perish. In which case the sun is a component to our evolution as well.

There are more things then just the sun, that have fulfilled a role in the material process that lead to us being here. Even the rest of the material world, the universe, has something to do with our being here, if you really think about it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
What do you suggest? That before mankind was there, the apes, or the plants were philosophising? I don't think so. Philosophy is definately an invention of humans.What I'm saying is that something just doesn't arise out of nothing and that the "principle" has always been there. That it's something that can be rediscovered at any time, by "anybody." How else would the Universe hold itself up if there were no "timeless principles" to hold it together?


The existence of anything can be determined by us to fullfill a purpose, either to or within nature itself, or to us. Besides mankind, purpose does not exist.Then what is the purpose of a cat? I thought "we" already established that?


But this just shows how our cognition works....Then there must be another dimension beneath the surface (spiritual if you will) that allows for these synchronistic occurrences to occur.


There are more things then just the sun, that have fulfilled a role in the material process that lead to us being here. Even the rest of the material world, the universe, has something to do with our being here, if you really think about it. For all intents and purposes the earth has always been here, as well as the sun, and without any kind of relationship between the two, life wouldn't exist as we know it, if at all ...

[Netme]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by heusdens
[B]There is a purpose for us, because we can put meaning and purpose in our lives, more as any other living being can. Although we developed from nature, we are the only species that realy has it's existence in it's own hands, and can overcome limitations of nature.
We can excercise more power as our human bodies can, because we can built tools which have almost unlimited power. etc.

[b]

The material world has randomness of course. And even our lives contain much forms of randomness. The wife you meet and get married to, have children with... it can well be that you and her meeting was just a random occurence which could or could not have taken place.

But there is not just randomness, there are also patterns that can be seen, and which are not totally random. It is important to see that.


Our feelings cannot ensure that the human race is destined to be the center for which all other life forms must exist. Human feelings are nothing more than evolved attributes gained in order to maintain the existence of our kind which have fortunately proven to have qualities that give dominance over the other life forms on earth. But with such power did not come with out its faults in existential sense. Just as different life forms have different attributes, seeing other kinds of being in a certain perspective can only be achieved by having the attributes of that kind. Unfortunately, the purpose I present to you is not to acknowledge the many different forms of life but rather to install a mind set that even though no one kind views in the same ways a single common view exists identical to all kinds. the same attributes that give us an advantage to dominate over all others has manifest into a self destructive form that causes hate within our own kind. Nonetheless all forms of being especially ones with more power in domination seem to also take on this existential fault. So you see self-destruction of ones kind is the final steps to existence that have been obediently taken on by the unknowing subjects that are now forever extinct. Human kind must not follow on the same path that has been given for us to follow. Mankind has evolved itself a mind capable to perceive godly intentions being them good, bad , or whichever views you take on god. let it be known that the universal insight shared by all life forms is the knowing nature that existence is the ultimate purpose to being and extinction, a being or not with such a horrifying unimaginable life forms desperately evolve subconsciously just to prolong their fate with it.

[drag]

Greetings !

What's the purpose of a human ? [g)]

Originally posted by steppenwolf
owning a cat is a philosophical exercise in
loving unconditionally a being
technologically and intellectually far
inferior to yourself while being completely
submissive to it. my cat is possibly the
only 'person' able to interupt me in the
middle of a good book/new scientist and
somehow end up being smothered in kisses,
pathetic really, i have no will power [:)]
I know what you mean. [:D]
Anyway, who's far inferior ?! I think the
cat family is the result of a very long
evolution of predetors and is practicly
perfect in many respects. We, on the
other hand, are more like a short fluke
and our physical abilities by comparisson
are pathetic, all we really have are these
large brains and good finger control for tools.

A cat is really important as a pet, I think.
It can teach you how to respect and
listen/observe another being. Dogs, by
comparisson, are just walking robots
who mostly do exactly what you want them
to do (and where's the fun in that ?!). And,
of course, cats are a lot better looking. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Psychodelirium
Well, I don't really agree with that. Questions about the "purpose" or "function" of this or that are asked and answered in biology all the time, and not surprisingly, such questions help us capture certain patterns of relations in the subject matter that otherwise we would have missed. I'm sure you'll agree, for example, that one can safely say that wings are for flying (that is, the purpose of wings is to provide flight), and that such a statement explains something of scientific import (i.e. why there is selection for wings).

One can similarly ascribe a functional role to cats, a role that they play in some ecological schema. For example, if the presence of cats controls the population of mice in an environment, we might rationalize the presence of cats by saying that cats are for controlling the population of mice, and this would explain something of scientific import (i.e. why there are cats).

Good enough points, however I think we are talking about two different kinds of "purpose". I was talking about the kind of purpose that implies that something is there for a specific reason. Evolution would dictate that physical charecteristics came about for no specific reasons, but were (afterward) used to the advantage of the creature that happened to have them.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?

Define purpose.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
Define purpose.

This is a good point. What is "purpose"?

I would define purpose as a human concept for describing the usefullness of some entity for humans. It can be generalized however to other beings, besides humans. Trees and forest have a purpose to the animals that live in the forest, and need it for their survival, for instance.

[Moetasim]

Originally posted by heusdens

I would define purpose as a human concept for describing the usefullness of some entity for humans.

Well I think someone already discussed one thing that there were cats before existence of human and if it is then I repeat that Q with amendment that
" What was purpose of cats before human then?"

[Iacchus32]

From the thread, The Center of Existence (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1869) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by particlehead
Exactly, mentat. In a sense, choosing the skin (a permeable membrane) as the defining line between inside and outside is totally arbitrary. It makes sense from a biological and perceptual view, but really the very idea of it is completely relative.If you wish to "meld" with your environment that's entirely up to you, but without the ability to make distinctions (between forms), there would be no point to getting out of bed in the morning and getting dressed. I think the fact that we have a form suggests a sense of purpose to go along with it. For example take a hammer. The pupose of a hammer is to drive nails.


The human body itself cannot be said to be "a thing." It is a collection of systems, interacting and interdependent. From the macro to the micro, the material world is built from systems of interaction, not blobs of "stuff." And yet this has very little to do with our conscious awareness, which is primarily driven by what we acknowledge, "through form."Typically, as given in the example of the hammer, "purpose" coincides with the "utilities of form."

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Moetasim
Well I think someone already discussed one thing that there were cats before existence of human and if it is then I repeat that Q with amendment that
" What was purpose of cats before human then?"

I agree here with Mentat, who said that talking about the purpose of things outside of human context is a rather meta-physical debate.

But to answer this, what is the purpose of any existing animal? I would think that animals fulfill by their existence, which is a struggle with nature for survival and reproduction, their own purpose.
To exist fulfills a purpose in and for itself.

[Alexander]

Purpose of animal (or anything else) is as arbitrary as its definition, then.

So, anything which comes to you mind is the purpose of cat then.

I prefere more sober materialistic view - there is no purpose by itself. Rock, cat, universe, planet, life, combustion, digestion, etc - do not have any purpose by themselves. They are just physical objects and physical processes. Physical process does not have a purpose.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
Purpose of animal (or anything else) is as arbitrary as its definition, then.

So, anything which comes to you mind is the purpose of cat then.

I prefere sober materialistic view - there is no purpose by itself. Rock, cat, universe, life, combustion, digestion, etc - do not have any purpose by themselves.

Does that also include human life?

[Alexander]

Of course. What is the purpose of human or viral life?

[FZ+]

I agree with Alexander. Purpose as a concept only exists in a specific context of an observer to judge the criteria of purpose.

[Mentat]

Alexander and FZ+ make a good point. If you look at nature, there is only one animal (only one being, for that matter) that contemplates "purpose". So, if there were no humans (or any other sentient creatures), then there would be no "purposes" (unless you consider achieving lower energy levels a purpose).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Alexander
Of course. What is the purpose of human or viral life?

The purpose of human life is to have a purpose in life?

But it is obvious we run in problems using the term "purpose" outside of it's context. This was a good exercise in finding that out.
Yet many concepts are born on that idea, extending terms beyond there well defined meaning. That is where the trouble comes from.
If one sticks to this extended definition, and want to have meaningfull answers to things like "purpose of the universe" etc., then one comes up with vague entities (f.i. God) that portray such concepts.

[BoulderHead]

But it is obvious we run in problems using the term "purpose" outside of it's context. This was a good exercise in finding that out.
Yet many concepts are born on that idea, extending terms beyond there well defined meaning. That is where the trouble comes from.
If one sticks to this extended definition, and want to have meaningfull answers to things like "purpose of the universe" etc., then one comes up with vague entities (f.i. God) that portray such concepts.

This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. There must therefore be a purpose for our existence.

Mankind has shown its insecurity by its belief in a greater purpose.
-Michael Pain

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. There must therefore be a purpose for our existence.

Mankind has shown its insecurity by its belief in a greater purpose.
-Michael Pain

At one point, you seem to agree, but in later instance you totally disagree. I think that our existence itself has no purpose. But this does not contradict the fact that we can find in our lives purposes for ourselves.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by heusdens
At one point, you seem to agree, but in later instance you totally disagree. I think that our existence itself has no purpose. But this does not contradict the fact that we can find in our lives purposes for ourselves. Let me edit (in bold) myself for clarity;

This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. Humans therefore have invented the concept of god to add purpose and meaning (other things too) to their existence

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Let me edit (in bold) myself for clarity;

This is where I had been thinking you wanted to take this; People wishing to apply a purpose to things that may not have one in and of itself…
Isn’t this really a major factor behind humans entertaining notions of God, and where does it come from? I would put forth an opinion that, by and large, humans are conceited egoists who cannot accept a universe without themselves in it. Humans therefore have invented the concept of god to add purpose and meaning (other things too) to their existence

Ok. That makes it clearer, and I would agree on that.

[Iacchus32]

Purpose is the "intended design." Like the purpose of a skeleton is to hold us up. Similarly, the purpose of a "cat's skeleton" -- i.e., in the "possessive sense" -- is to hold the cat up.

It's just utter nonsense to say things don't exist without a purpose.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Purpose is the "intended design." Like the purpose of a skeleton is to hold us up. Similarly, the purpose of a "cat's skeleton" -- i.e., in the "possessive sense" -- is to hold the cat up. "intended design". This sounds like a willful act. What is the difference between the 'function' of the cat's skeleton and the 'purpose' of same?
It's just utter nonsense to say things don't exist without a purpose.Is it utter nonsense also to claim that we mere mortals truly know the purpose of things?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
"intended design". This sounds like a willful act. What is the difference between the 'function' of the cat's skeleton and the 'purpose' of same?And yet it would seem the two words are interchangable here, through the "purposeful act" of us trying to communicate their difference.


Is it utter nonsense also to claim that we mere mortals truly know the purpose of things? Perhaps because we, as human beings, have the capacity to acknowledge that things don't happen arbitrarily, meaning there must be a sense of purpose to all things (even if we may not understand what that is). And why is it that those things which seem weak or "less purposeful" wind up becoming "a meal" for those things which are "more purposeful?"

When a predator sinks its teeth into its prey, wouldn't you deem that an act of willfulness?

And yes, I guess that does imply the Universe came about in a purposeful way ... as evidenced by us, human beings, who are given the ability to recognize it.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
[B]Good enough points, however I think we are
talking about two different kinds of "purpose".
I was talking about the kind of purpose that
implies that something is there for a specific
reason. Evolution would dictate that physical
charecteristics came about for no specific
reasons, but were (afterward) used to the
advantage of the creature that happened to
have them.
On the contrary, evolution came about for
very good reasons, they're called the Laws
of Physics. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
On the contrary, evolution came about for
very good reasons, they're called the Laws
of Physics. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

That is not a reason. A reason is a justification for an act. Something that occured at random may be justified (or, rather, what caused it can be explained) by some sentient being later on, but that doesn't mean that it was done for a reason.

[Alexander]

Define justification.

Evolution indeed happens just because laws of physics are such. Nobody "seeded" it and nothing (but natural laws) "manages" it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Define justification.

Evolution indeed happens just because laws of physics are such. Nobody "seeded" it and nothing (but natural laws) "manages" it.
Except when mankind shows up, out of a "sense of purpose" -- playing God if you will -- and throws a monkey wrench in the works.

[Alexander]

Mankind is a kind of apes.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Mankind is a kind of apes.
There's very little about what mankind has done to the world which could be deemed "natural." Indeed, it's all been brought about by his "abstract" ability to reason.

[Alexander]

Anyway, there is no purpose of (or in) life, evolution, viruses, mankind, monkeys, air, combustion, rusting, universe by themselves.

If you define a purpose as "to be used for", then purpose of, say, air is to support airplanes or combustion (for example), or purpose of life is to serve as a food for other lives.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Alexander
Anyway, there is no purpose of (or in) life, evolution, viruses, mankind, monkeys, air, combustion, rusting, universe by themselves.

If you define a purpose as "to be used for", then purpose of, say, air is to support airplanes or combustion (for example), or purpose of life is to serve as a food for other lives.
And yet mankind "seems" to be endowed with a sense of purpose. In other words there seems to be a sense of "accountability" that coincides with his actions.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
That is not a reason. A reason is a justification
for an act. Something that occured at random
may be justified (or, rather, what caused
it can be explained) by some sentient being
later on, but that doesn't mean that
it was done for a reason.
I'm not sure what you mean.
"Sentient being" ? I have no reason to
think that means anything more than
the laws of nature in action (for now).
Anyway, what's a justification ?

Live long and prosper.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet mankind "seems" to be endowed
with a sense of purpose. In other words
there seems to be a sense of "accountability"
that coincides with his actions.
Sure, when I wan'na eat I know I got'ta
grab a sandwich, when I got'ta go I know
I got'ta go and when I see a pack of greens
I wan'na grab it...[:D]

No offense, but if you say something clearly as
controversial as that you should explain it
immidiately. (This is not the G. & R. forum,
here you actually need to explain everything
you say. [;)])

Peace and long life.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Sure, when I wan'na eat I know I got'ta
grab a sandwich, when I got'ta go I know
I got'ta go and when I see a pack of greens
I wan'na grab it...[:D]

No offense, but if you say something clearly as
controversial as that you should explain it
immidiately. (This is not the G. & R. forum,
here you actually need to explain everything
you say. [;)])

Peace and long life.
Then what's the point (purpose) in even bothering to reply? [g)]

[drag]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then what's the point (purpose) in even
bothering to reply? [g)]
Excuse me ?
Clearly the point is to do what I asked
that you do: explain yourself or admit
the lack of an explanation, for your claim.
Thanks.

Peace and long life.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by drag
Excuse me ?
Clearly the point is to do what I asked
that you do: explain yourself or admit
the lack of an explanation, for your claim.
Thanks.

Peace and long life.
What is the difference between making a point and expressing a purpose? What is the point to this thread? Or, what is the purpose of this thread?

Clearly there must be a "sense of purpose" in you asking me to explain myself. Otherwise, what's the point?

If we can't get past this, then why bother?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I'm not sure what you mean.
"Sentient being" ?


Well, until now, I would have assumed that you were on of those (sentient beings)[;)]. What I mean is that "purpose" is synonymous to "intent" and only a living being can "intend" to do/create something. And only a sentient being can ponder something's purpose.


I have no reason to
think that means anything more than
the laws of nature in action (for now).


The laws of nature are not alive, they don't have purposes, because that would imply conscious choice.


Anyway, what's a justification ?



Perhaps I shouldn't have used that word. What I meant was that a reason can only be assigned to an act by a being that can ponder the act (or by the being that performed the act).

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is the difference between making a
point and expressing a purpose? What is
the point to this thread? Or, what is the
purpose of this thread?

Clearly there must be a "sense of purpose"
in you asking me to explain myself. Otherwise,
what's the point?

If we can't get past this, then why bother?

The purpose of this thread is to determine
the in/existence of a purpose to what we
define as life or sentient life.

But, you're right, basicly if many people here
do not wish to call serving the laws of nature
a "purpose" then what other arguments can
we produce here - observation's all we got.

I don't fully agree with that though, I think
our purpose is simply to be statisticly better
catalysts for entropy than the non-organic. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
...
What I mean is that "purpose" is synonymous
to "intent" and only a living being can
"intend" to do/create something. And only
a sentient being can ponder something's purpose.
...
The laws of nature are not alive, they don't
have purposes, because that would imply
conscious choice.
Hey, according to our observations so far -
niether are we. And that's my point.

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Hey, according to our observations so far -
niether are we. And that's my point.



We're not what? Alive?

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
We're not what? Alive?
Yes. Unless you wish to define the
word alive as "complex cabonous molecules"
or something...[;)]
Doesn't seem to make much of a difference
for the "purpose" part in this case.

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Yes. Unless you wish to define the
word alive as "complex cabonous molecules"
or something...[;)]
Doesn't seem to make much of a difference
for the "purpose" part in this case.

Live long and prosper.

Excuse me, but we fit all of the different Biological criteria for being alive, therefore we are alive.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Excuse me, but we fit all of the different
Biological criteria for being alive, therefore
we are alive.
No offense, but this is getting funnier
by the post (in a normal conversation I would
say by the minute but this is a web forum [;)]).
And what ARE the Biological criteria for
being alive ? [:D]

[RuroumiKenshin]

The biological creteria for alive:

being able to reproduce (through mitosis or meiosis)
having herediatry material

Of course, this data is gathered from the characteristics of life on earth. If there is life on other planets, then there may be other criteria. But the current information allows the aforementioned to be realiable creteria for life on earth.

[Veral]

What is the purpose of a Euglena? What is the purpose of a cockroach? What is the purpose of a dog? In essence, you are asking a redundant question: the purpose of a cat is to be a cat.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Veral
What is the purpose of a Euglena? What is the purpose of a cockroach? What is the purpose of a dog? In essence, you are asking a redundant question: the purpose of a cat is to be a cat.
And yet, the cat also has an impact on its environment, which is to say, the purpose of a cat is also to keep the population of rodents down.

[Mentat]

Again, the point needs to be brought out: A purpose is assigned by concious beings. If a cat was not created by a concious being, then it has no purpose, until assigned one.

Let's take a dog, for example (since they are infinitely more useful, IMO [:)]), that has been trained to be a drug-dog. This dog's purpose is to find drugs. It has been assigned this purpose by a concious being. However, another dog (perhaps the drug-dog's brother or sister) is used for hunting, and so it's purpose is to hunt.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
No offense, but this is getting funnier
by the post (in a normal conversation I would
say by the minute but this is a web forum [;)]).
And what ARE the Biological criteria for
being alive ? [:D]

A species of living things are supposed to be able to reproduce more of themselves.

A species of living things are supposed to be able to change to adapt to their environment.

A species of living things are supposed to be able to take in nutrients.

There are a few more criteria, that FZ+ knows better than I do. I know that not all of the criteria are excepted by all people. In fact, they are all debatable. My point is that we meet all of them, and so we are alive.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Again, the point needs to be brought out: A purpose is assigned by concious beings. If a cat was not created by a concious being, then it has no purpose, until assigned one.

Let's take a dog, for example (since they are infinitely more useful, IMO [:)]), that has been trained to be a drug-dog. This dog's purpose is to find drugs. It has been assigned this purpose by a concious being. However, another dog (perhaps the drug-dog's brother or sister) is used for hunting, and so it's purpose is to hunt. Cats don't need people in order to eat mice, in which case people may "expidite" this tendency for "their own" purposes.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Mentat
A species of living things are supposed to be able to reproduce more of themselves.

A species of living things are supposed to be able to change to adapt to their environment.

A species of living things are supposed to be able to take in nutrients.

There are a few more criteria, that FZ+ knows better than I do. I know that not all of the criteria are excepted by all people. In fact, they are all debatable. My point is that we meet all of them, and so we are alive.
Yep. The standard bread and butter criteria are:

Nutrition
Reproduction
Sensitivity
Excretion
Movement
Growth
Respiration

Maybe some others.

But it's pretty clear we are alive, since the idea of life itself was created using us as the model. It is debatable though whether this idea of life is reflected in the real world, though... Ie. while this biological list holds true for all earth life, all things which cover it may not neccessarily be considered by us as alive, and all things which do not cover this list may still be considered by us as alive. It's a very subjective thing, our concept of life.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, what is the purpose of this thread?


We should start a new thread on THAT issue!


... and honestly, I don't know anymore, although I started it!

Nevertheless this tread already developed for 5 pages.
Would that be intended that way, doesn't it follow from the way the thread proceeds, there is purpose to the thread, which is above and besides any one's individual intent's and purposes?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Cats don't need people in order to eat mice, in which case people may "expidite" this tendency for "their own" purposes.

Are cats conscious? If so, then they can make their own purposes (as I said in my previous post).

[Netme]

The reason why you cannot find the true purpose of existence is because you avoid to think about what may make you feel threatend or even scared of your creator which has ultimately lead you into a confused state of mind where you make up gods of good nature and religion only to ease the fact that you are resisting the human urge to find the truth.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Netme
The reason why you cannot find the true purpose of existence is because you avoid to think about what may make you feel threatend or even scared of your creator which has ultimately lead you into a confused state of mind where you make up gods of good nature and religion only to ease the fact that you are resisting the human urge to find the truth.

What if the way to find truth lies in denying that urge? Unless you claim to have found ultimate truth, you cannot deny this possibility.

Some people are so busy searching for truth that "it's as though Truth came knocking on your door, and you said 'go away, I'm looking for Truth', and so it goes away..." (from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance).

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
A species of living things are supposed to be
able to change to adapt to their environment.

A species of living things are supposed
to be able to take in nutrients.

And so on and so on - physical proccesses,
groups of molecules taking the path
of the laws of nature. But, what's the
difference in the "purpose" part ? [;)]
Either you get to the super-natural anti-science
and hence anti-observation and anti-proof part
or just give up this pointless line of argument.
You only have these two separate ways to go
and explain yourself when you say "purpose".
Being vague won't solve the issue. [:D]

Peace and long life.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Are cats conscious? If so, then they can make their own purposes (as I said in my previous post).

To some extent they are at least. But are they consciouss about their own purposes?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
And so on and so on - physical proccesses,
groups of molecules taking the path
of the laws of nature. But, what's the
difference in the "purpose" part ? [;)]


How about the fact that unconscious entities cannot make purposes? How about the fact that you must be alive to be conscious?


Either you get to the super-natural anti-science
and hence anti-observation and anti-proof part
or just give up this pointless line of argument.
You only have these two separate ways to go
and explain yourself when you say "purpose".
Being vague won't solve the issue. [:D]



I wasn't trying to be vague, I thought I was rather clear. It's pretty obvious that I was saying you must be conscious to assign purpose to anything. This is a readily demonstrable, and easily observable, fact.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
To some extent they are at least. But are they consciouss about their own purposes?

Yes, otherwise they couldn't assign the purpose at all.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, otherwise they couldn't assign the purpose at all.

The fact that we see purpose in a cat's behaviour does not mean the cat itself must be conscious of that.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
I wasn't trying to be vague, I thought I was
rather clear. It's pretty obvious that I was
saying you must be conscious to assign purpose
to anything. This is a readily demonstrable,
and easily observable, fact.
No, you ARE being vague. According to
science you are not conscious - it's an
illusion. What you "experience" is the direct
result of physical laws and "you" have no
ability to really define purposes or anything
else for yourself.

Saying I CAN this or that means that you deny
the currently most likely explanation that
science has for this. So, there's really no
purpose to speak about but the laws of nature.
Unless of course you do claim the currently
"super-natural" stuff.

Live long and prosper.

[Alexander]

pur·pose ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrps), n.

1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: "And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue" (Sarah Josepha Hale).

2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.

3. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.

4. The matter at hand; the point at issue.


Idioms:

on purpose
Intentionally; deliberately.

to good purpose
With good results.

to little/no purpose
With few or no results.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The fact that we see purpose in a cat's behaviour does not mean the cat itself must be conscious of that.

That's the point: The cat's behavior has no purpose, until some conscious entity (whether it's the cat, some human, or any other conscious entity) assigns it.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

No, you ARE being vague. According to
science you are not conscious - it's an
illusion. What you "experience" is the direct
result of physical laws and "you" have no
ability to really define purposes or anything
else for yourself.


What theory dictates this?

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
What theory dictates this?
Physics, Chemistry and Biology. [;)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Physics, Chemistry and Biology. [;)]

Since when do any of these Sciences dictate that consciousness cannot be produced by a complex relationship of neurons?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Physics, Chemistry and Biology. [;)]

And what about sociology, economy and psychology?

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
Since when do any of these Sciences dictate
that consciousness cannot be produced by a
complex relationship of neurons?
Since the time that they were all based on
physical laws which in turn do not support
the existence of a consciouss - capable
of free and independent thought being.
If you were to truelly think freely then
you can not possibly agree that you still
fully abide the laws of nature at the same
time. According to modern science consciousness
is an illusion and hence purpose is also an
illusion of its dellusional abstract thought.
Originally posted by Mentat
And what about sociology, economy and psychology?
The reason these exist and indeed the separation
exists between the original 3 sciences which
I mentioned is the complexity of our Universe.
If we could explain sociology from direct
physical systems using just the laws of
physics then we wouldn't need it at all.
However, the complexity is so great that
this does not appear to be possible at a high
level even within the next few centuries from now.

So, since we are not able to make the
connections for now because they are so
complex, we have many sciences each dealing
with different levels and types of patterns
in the Universe. You can also see that the
higher the complexity of the systems a theory
studies the less certain its laws become and
more and more statistics is being used as
the basis of the theory without clear formulated
laws.

There does not, according to modern science,
appear to be any fundumental reason why
these sciences should be separate or independent
besides the complexity issue I mentioned above.
The separation is made only due to compromise
between the usefullness and the practical
ability to make it of a scientiic field as well
as our historical semantic division of the
Universe into the relevant "parts". That's why
it's all called science - all of the observed...[;)]

Live long and prosper.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Since the time that they were all based on
physical laws which in turn do not support
the existence of a consciouss - capable
of free and independent thought being.
If you were to truelly think freely then
you can not possibly agree that you still
fully abide the laws of nature at the same
time. According to modern science consciousness
is an illusion and hence purpose is also an
illusion of its dellusional abstract thought.



There has been a time, physics was to be thought as totally deterministic , but modern science has clearly discovered this to be not the case.

Hence your argument fails, and fails only cause you imply wrong conclusions out of physical laws.

Your argument comes down to that the consciousness of human beings, since they are made of the same "stuff" as everything (protons, neutrons, electrons) could not excercise "free will" unless also protons, neutrons and electrons have that property.

This however is a nonsense statement, cause you miss the point that between the layers of atoms and that of a brain, there are many levels of complexity, each with their own properties.

You can not reduce the working of a brain downto atoms.
It doesn't work that way.



The reason these exist and indeed the separation
exists between the original 3 sciences which
I mentioned is the complexity of our Universe.
If we could explain sociology from direct
physical systems using just the laws of
physics then we wouldn't need it at all.
However, the complexity is so great that
this does not appear to be possible at a high
level even within the next few centuries from now.



Like stated before the level of complexity of societal behaviour are not reducible to that of atoms. That is the reason why psychology and sociology are seperate disciplines in science. Nevertheless sociology come up with their own set of 'laws' for describing the events in their field of knowledge.


So, since we are not able to make the
connections for now because they are so
complex, we have many sciences each dealing
with different levels and types of patterns
in the Universe. You can also see that the
higher the complexity of the systems a theory
studies the less certain its laws become and
more and more statistics is being used as
the basis of the theory without clear formulated
laws.

There does not, according to modern science,
appear to be any fundumental reason why
these sciences should be separate or independent
besides the complexity issue I mentioned above.
The separation is made only due to compromise
between the usefullness and the practical
ability to make it of a scientiic field as well
as our historical semantic division of the
Universe into the relevant "parts". That's why
it's all called science - all of the observed...[;)]

Live long and prosper.

It should be stated that the laws describing reality are ultimately more complex then the large scale behaviour of matter. Even though all properties and laws we can ever witness, are deduced somehow from physical behaviour.

Your argue from the point of total determinism, which is a point of view that has since long be rejected by modern physics.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
There has been a time, physics was to be thought as totally deterministic , but modern science has clearly discovered this to be not the case.

Hence your argument fails, and fails only cause you imply wrong conclusions out of physical laws.

Your argument comes down to that the consciousness of human beings, since they are made of the same "stuff" as everything (protons, neutrons, electrons) could not excercise "free will" unless also protons, neutrons and electrons have that property.

This however is a nonsense statement, cause you miss the point that between the layers of atoms and that of a brain, there are many levels of complexity, each with their own properties.

You can not reduce the working of a brain downto atoms.
It doesn't work that way.




Like stated before the level of complexity of societal behaviour are not reducible to that of atoms. That is the reason why psychology and sociology are seperate disciplines in science. Nevertheless sociology come up with their own set of 'laws' for describing the events in their field of knowledge.



It should be stated that the laws describing reality are ultimately more complex then the large scale behaviour of matter. Even though all properties and laws we can ever witness, are deduced somehow from physical behaviour.

Your argue from the point of total determinism, which is a point of view that has since long be rejected by modern physics.

Well, heusdens summed it up rather nicely. I would add that one specific aspect of modern physics, that allows for free will and consciousness, is Quantum Uncertainty. I know you know at least some of the Uncertainty Principle, and so it should be no difficult task for you to see that it (by postulating indeterminacy) allows for "choices", "free will", and consciousness.

[Alexander]

Drag is correct, consciouseness does not exist. It can not even be defined. And what can't be defined simply does not exist. There is simply no object (or subject) to exist yet.

God(s), soul(s), angels, devils, ghosts, flogiston, vital matter, spirit(s), free will, etc - are from the same category of inexisting objects/subjects.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Alexander
Drag is correct, consciouseness does not exist.
It can not even be defined. And what can't be
defined simply does not exist. There is simply
no object (or subject) to exist yet.
From the mouth of scientists...[;)]

heusdens, I have no idea what you mean by
trying to impose such a separation within
science. Care to explain yourself, please ?

Mentat, QM is not "Allice's wonderland", while it
does include partial uncertainty it FULLY predicts
it - so no ferry tales beyond that, I'm afraid. [;)]

Peace and long life.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Since the time that they were all based on
physical laws which in turn do not support
the existence of a consciouss - capable
of free and independent thought being.
If you were to truelly think freely then
you can not possibly agree that you still
fully abide the laws of nature at the same
time. According to modern science consciousness
is an illusion and hence purpose is also an
illusion of its dellusional abstract thought.


Yeah. Well and not only can , from the point of view of physical law , consciousness not exist, but neither could the Big Bang exist.

So in fact, neither me nor you or anything can exist at all, since it is not supported by physcial law.

So, as seen from physical law, nothing whatsoever exists.

All agree?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
heusdens, I have no idea what you mean by
trying to impose such a separation within
science. Care to explain yourself, please ?


Which seperation?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
If you were to truelly think freely then
you can not possibly agree that you still
fully abide the laws of nature at the same
time.

1. The laws of nature, are what we observe them to be. Physcis laws are inventions of human minds, which approximate observed reality.
Physics laws don't dictate reality, but reality dictates our (observation) of reality. If our physics laws don't match reality as it is, then it's not reality that is in error, but our perception thereof (the physical laws/models/theories).

2. You seem to think here in absolute terms of freedom. But a lot of our behaviour and thinking is determined by:
- the way our brain as a material organ and in connection to our body, works. The brain, while usefull also for abstract thinking, in the first place serves as a control organ, to serve our body for survival. This is a determination from our physical nature.
- everybody has preconceived ideas about reality. From education, parents, school, society. We can become consciouss of that, and learn to overcome our preconceived and probably incorrect ideas.

3. I can very well think that I, while have all sorts of limitations and determinations, that form me and my thinking, of which I can not get rid of in total, still I experience some or other form of freedom. But most freedom comes from hard work, and consciously working on overcoming limitations and determinations, aquiring knowledge, etc. And at the same time, I can perfectly deal with the fact that apples fall to the ground according to physical laws, and not because they 'intend' to.



According to modern science consciousness
is an illusion and hence purpose is also an
illusion of its dellusional abstract thought.


Then modern science is clearly in error, but I think you are just referring to 'some' modern science, which maybe claim that.

Our consciousness, is our selfdetermination, and our distinction with and towards the unconsciouss material world. Science explains this distinction as the outcome of a long and very complex historical, physical, chemical and biological process, called evolution.

[drag]

Greetings heusdens !
Originally posted by heusdens
So, as seen from physical law, nothing whatsoever exists.

Correction, these are slightly different things
you're talking about. It is true that science
can not explain the basic ellements it observes
and/or theorizes. However, the difference is that
real consciousness according to the definition
I personally attribute to it is not supposed
to be explained at ALL while the other basic
stuff may possibly have an explanation.
Originally posted by heusdens
Which seperation?
This separation:
Originally posted by heusdens
Like stated before the level of complexity of
societal behaviour are not reducible to that
of atoms. That is the reason why psychology
and sociology are seperate disciplines in
science. Nevertheless sociology come up with
their own set of 'laws' for describing the
events in their field of knowledge.
...
It should be stated that the laws describing
reality are ultimately more complex then the
large scale behaviour of matter. Even though
all properties and laws we can ever witness,
are deduced somehow from physical behaviour.

Your argue from the point of total determinism,
which is a point of view that has since long
be rejected by modern physics.
I really do not understand you here.
Originally posted by heusdens
1. The laws of nature, are what we observe them
to be. Physcis laws are inventions of human minds,
which approximate observed reality. Physics laws
don't dictate reality, but reality dictates our
(observation) of reality. If our physics laws
don't match reality as it is, then it's not
reality that is in error, but our perception
thereof (the physical laws/models/theories).

Indeed. So, have you proved the theory
of consciousness already (and defined it first) ?
Originally posted by heusdens
2. You seem to think here in absolute terms of
freedom. But a lot of our behaviour and thinking
is determined by: - the way our brain as a material
organ and in connection to our body, works. The
brain, while usefull also for abstract thinking,
in the first place serves as a control organ, to
serve our body for survival. This is a determination
from our physical nature. - everybody has
preconceived ideas about reality. From education,
parents, school, society. We can become consciouss
of that, and learn to overcome our preconceived and
probably incorrect ideas.
I'm not sure how this is relevant. I do
not see where I said anything's wrong with
the above.
Originally posted by heusdens
3. I can very well think that I, while have all
sorts of limitations and determinations, that
form me and my thinking, of which I can not get
rid of in total, still I experience some or other
form of freedom. But most freedom comes from hard
work, and consciously working on overcoming
limitations and determinations, aquiring knowledge,
etc. And at the same time, I can perfectly deal with
the fact that apples fall to the ground according to
physical laws, and not because they 'intend' to.
I realize how this could be confusing and in fact
see that my own statement you quoted also
appears paradoxical. However, according to
science, for now, what you need to do
is reverse roles - your free thoughts are the
result of physical laws in action - not the
other way around. This way you also eliminate
the apparent contradiction (although some
undefinable problem may still seem to remain -
what you consider your consciousness/free will).
Originally posted by heusdens
Then modern science is clearly in error, but I
think you are just referring to 'some' modern
science, which maybe claim that.

Our consciousness, is our selfdetermination, and
our distinction with and towards the unconsciouss
material world. Science explains this distinction
as the outcome of a long and very complex
historical, physical, chemical and biological
process, called evolution.
No offense but that is clearly wrong and
clearly nonesense. Modern science accepts
probablistic physical laws. Modern science
does not accept nor even define consciousness,
nor does it recognize any fundumental difference
between us and non-living stuff.

In conclusion, again - this purpose stuff is
pointless in my opinion. Unless of course
you want a more "shallow" - just sociology
level discussion.

Peace and long life.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings heusdens !

Correction, these are slightly different things
you're talking about. It is true that science
can not explain the basic ellements it observes
and/or theorizes. However, the difference is that
real consciousness according to the definition
I personally attribute to it is not supposed
to be explained at ALL while the other basic
stuff may possibly have an explanation.

I was just stating these things, cause your line of reasoning is clearly in error.

Your arguments goes like: "Science can not explain X.. Therefore X does not exist".

It is obviously wrong. When science can not explain consciousness, this does not mean that consciousness does not exist, since we still observe and state people to have consciousness, it just means we have not evolved a complete and scientific theory on consciousness yet.



This separation:

I really do not understand you here.

Indeed. So, have you proved the theory
of consciousness already (and defined it first) ?

I'm not sure how this is relevant. I do
not see where I said anything's wrong with
the above.

I realize how this could be confusing and in fact
see that my own statement you quoted also
appears paradoxical. However, according to
science, for now, what you need to do
is reverse roles - your free thoughts are the
result of physical laws in action - not the
other way around. This way you also eliminate
the apparent contradiction (although some
undefinable problem may still seem to remain -
what you consider your consciousness/free will).

No offense but that is clearly wrong and
clearly nonesense. Modern science accepts
probablistic physical laws. Modern science
does not accept nor even define consciousness,
nor does it recognize any fundumental difference
between us and non-living stuff.

In conclusion, again - this purpose stuff is
pointless in my opinion. Unless of course
you want a more "shallow" - just sociology
level discussion.

You limit modern science to only the physics theory?

That is not a definition of modern science, and modern science clearly recognizes that humans have consciousness, and also animals to some extent.
And even if there is a seperation between lifeless and living matter, this does not mean that living matter is not determined by the same laws as ordinary matter, but just means there are qualitative differences. Organisms have a level of complexity in which they can interact with the environment in order to sustain themselves and the species. This is a qualitative difference with ordinary - lifeless - matter.

Modern science has no problem in explaining anything material, so why should consciousness be left out from that?

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by heusdens
I was just stating these things, cause your
line of reasoning is clearly in error.

Your arguments goes like: "Science can not
explain X.. Therefore X does not exist".

It is obviously wrong. When science can not
explain consciousness, this does not mean
that consciousness does not exist, since we
still observe and state people to have
consciousness, it just means we have not
evolved a complete and scientific theory on
consciousness yet.
I see no error in my line of reasoning.

First of all consciousness is NOT a scientific
assumption attributed to/theorized from observation,
and thus also has no clear definition.

Second, there is a fundumental quality to
the concept of consciousness (even in its
undefined state) that if an explanation, along
the lines of any reasoning system included in
science so far, is found - it will NOT be in fact
an explanation of consciousness. That is,
consciosness, as I see it, implies the lack
of any laws to explain it - at least in the
conventional meaning of the term explanation
as far as we understand it for now.
Originally posted by heusdens
You limit modern science to only the physics theory?

Yes, physics is the corner-stone of science -
observation. The other sciences are based
upon it's laws and indeed exist only due to
our semantic separation (like chemistry dealing
with atoms and anything larger) on the one hand
and the limmits of practical use due to our
limmitation in fully deciphering the complexity
of observation down to the basic level of physics
(like sociology). The so-called "laws" of sociology
or biology or even chemistry are eventually
the result of basic physical laws and are only
necessary for now because we find it difficult
to simplify the systems appropriatly. An additional
point to notice is that the "development" of
physical laws in complex systems is the
development of very complex patterns and thus
our ability of fully simplified explanation is
limmited further, for now and for current systems
in these additional sciences, by our limmited
knowledge of the theory of patterns - mathematics
which, so far, appears to be capable of discribing
all of the patterns we observe.
Originally posted by heusdens
That is not a definition of modern science, and
modern science clearly recognizes that humans
have consciousness, and also animals to some extent.

If you're talking about sciences like
sociology or psychology then they are
nothing more than rough statistical
approximations of the operation of complex
physical systems. They do NOT assume consciosness
exists, but they might use it as an "assisting
temporary assumption" to help explain
the great amounts of missing knowledge they
statisticly constitute. That is, despite the
complexity of such systems some general
correlation between basic physical laws
and the behavior of these complex systems
does exist(I "want" to eat because I need
energy from molecular interactions) - but since
it's so complex and as yet not clearly defined
and explained some may choose to veil this with
this "assisting temporary assumption" - since
they need a word for it (perhpaps such people
should've chosen a different word). There is
nothing "clear" in such "definitions".
Originally posted by heusdens
Modern science has no problem in explaining
anything material, so why should consciousness
be left out from that?
Hmm...[:D] I'd think you know my answer to that...[;)]
First of all, I have no idea what you mean
by "material", I just know - "observed".
Second, consciousness does not appear to be observed. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I see no error in my line of reasoning.

First of all consciousness is NOT a scientific
assumption attributed to/theorized from observation,
and thus also has no clear definition.

Second, there is a fundumental quality to
the concept of consciousness (even in its
undefined state) that if an explanation, along
the lines of any reasoning system included in
science so far, is found - it will NOT be in fact
an explanation of consciousness. That is,
consciosness, as I see it, implies the lack
of any laws to explain it - at least in the
conventional meaning of the term explanation
as far as we understand it for now.

Yes, physics is the corner-stone of science -
observation. The other sciences are based
upon it's laws and indeed exist only due to
our semantic separation (like chemistry dealing
with atoms and anything larger) on the one hand
and the limmits of practical use due to our
limmitation in fully deciphering the complexity
of observation down to the basic level of physics
(like sociology). The so-called "laws" of sociology
or biology or even chemistry are eventually
the result of basic physical laws and are only
necessary for now because we find it difficult
to simplify the systems appropriatly. An additional
point to notice is that the "development" of
physical laws in complex systems is the
development of very complex patterns and thus
our ability of fully simplified explanation is
limmited further, for now and for current systems
in these additional sciences, by our limmited
knowledge of the theory of patterns - mathematics
which, so far, appears to be capable of discribing
all of the patterns we observe.

If you're talking about sciences like
sociology or psychology then they are
nothing more than rough statistical
approximations of the operation of complex
physical systems. They do NOT assume consciosness
exists, but they might use it as an "assisting
temporary assumption" to help explain
the great amounts of missing knowledge they
statisticly constitute. That is, despite the
complexity of such systems some general
correlation between basic physical laws
and the behavior of these complex systems
does exist(I "want" to eat because I need
energy from molecular interactions) - but since
it's so complex and as yet not clearly defined
and explained some may choose to veil this with
this "assisting temporary assumption" - since
they need a word for it (perhpaps such people
should've chosen a different word). There is
nothing "clear" in such "definitions".

Hmm...[:D] I'd think you know my answer to that...[;)]
First of all, I have no idea what you mean
by "material", I just know - "observed".
Second, consciousness does not appear to be observed. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

Consciousness we DO observe, at least the EFFECTS of consciousness, which is behaviour. We can study apes, people, we can even plug euipments in brains and scan brains, and make theories about which part of the brain is repsonsible for which/what behaviour and awareness, etc.

Remember that consciousness is just a term for large scale complex behaviour of matter, like that of humans. We "know" it exists, cause we witness the effects of it. But we should not be surprised that, when analyzing and studying it, the "thing" involved will completely dissolve and melt, and has at the same time the property of "not being there", cause it seems just an illusion.

In the same way, the computer screen I am looking at, is completely an illusion. If we carefully study it, it will dissolve into pixels with 3 basic colours, and nothing of the total picture we had before, will remain. That seems just an illusion.

Still if we look back again from a distance to the screen, it seems it still is some entity of it's own, and merits a form of existence.
Even though the image is't the "real thing", but composed of smaller things "pixels".

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
Remember that consciousness is just a term for
large scale complex behaviour of matter, like
that of humans.
Then this definition of yours matches
what I said about vague "assisting term"
for relativly higher complexity level stuff
sciences. And yet, it is clear then that it
has no precise definition or bounderies.

I'm glad we cleared this up because I
enitially assumed you were talking about
some super-natural stuff or something.

Peace and long life.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

From the mouth of scientists...[;)]

heusdens, I have no idea what you mean by
trying to impose such a separation within
science. Care to explain yourself, please ?

Mentat, QM is not "Allice's wonderland", while it
does include partial uncertainty it FULLY predicts
it - so no ferry tales beyond that, I'm afraid. [;)]

Peace and long life.

Yes, it fully predicts it, thus limiting the amount of "free will" that one can have.

Note: I'm not saying that I believe in Free Will (I happen to believe that it's unprovable, and therefore about as useful as Solipsism). I'm just making a case for it's also not being disprovable.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Drag is correct, consciouseness does not exist. It can not even be defined. And what can't be defined simply does not exist. There is simply no object (or subject) to exist yet.



Consciouness can, indeed, be defined. Besides, something that exists may be undefinable.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Consciouness can, indeed, be defined.
Please do, then.
Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, something that exists may be undefinable.
Indeed.

Live long and prosper.

[Alexander]

Consciouseness = active state of neurons.

[LogicalAtheist]

1. Drag - I see in some of your posts you continuously ask that once a person say X can be defined, you demand of them to define it.

You need to realize that one can prove that X can be defined without defining it.

Furthermore you continuously assume one means X has an ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE DEFINITION. We aren't making this assumption, you are.

Please look into this.

2. To the cat comment, the origon of this post. I will disregard your word PURPOSE, for the sake of an ecological answer.

The "purpose" of a cat in an ecological environment is extremely complex. But to see the basics, one must look at what the cat gives out that others take in. that's it's purpose. Simply put.

If you're not looking for an ecological answer, sorry purpose doesn't exist.

If you're looking for one in terms of HUMAN ecology, and the human based domesticated cat.

It's still the same answer as a template, but specifcs are so different.

The cat gives "out" something the human recieves.

1. attention from another organism
2. Pleasing sensations, licking, purring, warmth, furriness
3. etc.....

[drag]

Originally posted by Alexander
Consciouseness = active state of neurons.
Why do you need to use this semanticly complicated
word to define something so simple that can
just be called that. btw, is that an official
scientific definition ?
Also, you do realize of course that consciousness
is then also, for example, the nerve from my
little finger connected to two active electrodes.
Not a great thing it is then, is it ? [:D]

Live long and prosper.

[Adam]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?
To be fed by humans.

What is the purpose of humans? To feed cats.

[Alexander]

No, purpose of humans is to drink good beer.

[drag]

Originally posted by Adam
What is the purpose of humans? To feed cats.
Originally posted by Alexander
No, purpose of humans is to drink good beer.
I really like both ! [:D]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Please do, then.

Indeed.

Live long and prosper.

That means that I needn't define it, in order for it to exist, right?

Anyway, I will define it: The state of being aware.


If you'd like an example, how about the fact that you are aware of my question right now?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Consciouseness = active state of neurons.

No, active state of neurons produces consciousness. There's a very big difference.

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
Anyway, I will define it: The state of being aware.

If you'd like an example, how about the fact
that you are aware of my question right now?
Then explain "aware"...[;)]
This chain breaks down in the end or is infinite
because you have no concrete explanation. And, the
simple fact is that because you only have
this singular unexplainable thing - which you
might consider your consciousness or the result
of physical proccesses as explained by science,
you can not make use of it due to lack of definition.
That is, maybe you're right (nothing is certain -
including this satement [:D]), but even if you
are - while we have science which explains the
obseved by dealing with SEPARATE things in the
observed data, we do NOT, apparently, have anything
else with which to associate consciosness or
we do not have the appropriate reasoning system,
for now, to incorporate consciosness into
science. So, it may exist and it may not, but
at the absense of a system in which to put it
we probably can't deal with such a separate
and singular concept. And if we can't deal with it
or draw any data from it - we can't make use of
it and might just as well ignore it, until purhaps
it does appear in context with something else or
is discovered to have a structure we can deal with.

This is like receiving data input from the
Universe on totally different unconnected levels.
So, either one of the levels is not real at all
but a mere assumption and a result of the other
level, or - we're the connection but we have
not yet succeeded in fomalizing it. (Or, maybe
it's something comletly different...)


Live long and prosper.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, active state of neurons produces consciousness. There's a very big difference.

Exactly what is the difference?

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex. See the difference between these two statements...

Betty = Alex
Betty produces Alex

COme on now, it' sobvious!

BTW - active neurons don't produce "consciousness" unless your definition of "consciousness" is "the active state of neurons". Get it?

Define terms...

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Exactly what is the difference?

The difference is that the active state of neurons is a physical phenomenon, while consciousness is a metaphysical consequence of that physical phenomenon.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Then explain "aware"...[;)]
This chain breaks down in the end or is infinite
because you have no concrete explanation.


No, it does so because language is dependent on it's own definitions. I could take any word, and follow the "define that new term" road forever, if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that the use of the word lacks concrete explanation.


That is, maybe you're right (nothing is certain -
including this satement [:D]), but even if you
are - while we have science which explains the
obseved by dealing with SEPARATE things in the
observed data, we do NOT, apparently, have anything
else with which to associate consciosness


Not ture, we have the active "firing" of neurons, which happens during "concious thought".

BTW, I think you should see some of my responses to Manuel_Silvio about his Uncertainty idea (that nothing is really certain), in the thread "I think therefore I am", because I clearly explained that it is a paradoxical (and completely unusable) concept.

[drag]

Greetings once again, Mentat ! [:)]
Originally posted by Mentat
No, it does so because language is dependent
on it's own definitions. I could take any word,
and follow the "define that new term" road forever,
if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that the
use of the word lacks concrete explanation.

I am refering to SCIENTIFIC explanation - the
only type most of us consider likely acceptable
because it is a direct consequence from the
data input we have - observation. You can not
provide me with a SCIENTIFIC explanation for
that term, for now at least, can you ?
Otherwise, it indeed makes no sense of picking
on words.
Originally posted by Mentat
Not ture, we have the active "firing" of neurons,
which happens during "concious thought".

Which happens as a response to another "firing"
discribed in space-time by well defined particles
from QM, or science in short, an so on...
So ?
How do you make a clear distinction between
this observed happenning in your brain and
this observed happenning in a rock ?
Originally posted by Mentat
because I clearly explained that it is a
paradoxical (and completely unusable) concept.
It is, indeed. But it just so happens
to be that this concept is the only one
that, so far, seems to always make sense. [;)]

Fascinating ! How DO you PROVE that a
concept is paradoxical ?

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I am refering to SCIENTIFIC explanation - the
only type most of us consider likely acceptable
because it is a direct consequence from the
data input we have - observation. You can not
provide me with a SCIENTIFIC explanation for
that term, for now at least, can you ?
Otherwise, it indeed makes no sense of picking
on words.


A scientific explanation for what term?


Which happens as a response to another "firing"
discribed in space-time by well defined particles
from QM, or science in short, an so on...
So ?
How do you make a clear distinction between
this observed happenning in your brain and
this observed happenning in a rock ?


By what happens on a macroscopic level. I am no different, at the subatomic level, than any other physical entity, but that doesn't mean that I am no different altogether.


It is, indeed. But it just so happens
to be that this concept is the only one
that, so far, seems to always make sense. [;)]


No it doesn't. It's paradoxical, and thus unusable. A paradox is the end of a rational path. When one comes to paradox, one either abandons the path they are on, or resorts to complacency and acceptance.


Fascinating ! How DO you PROVE that a
concept is paradoxical ?


See "I think therefore I am" for a detailed debate on the matter.

Basically, I showed that trying to doubt everything must include doubting the premise that tells you to doubt everything. Thus you have no reason to doubt everything, and (in fact) cannot take for granted that you should do so. But, the reason you cannot take for granted that you should do so is that you have already taken it for granted.

This is much like the paradox of limitlessness, and I think wuliheron would probably be better at explaining it than I.

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
A scientific explanation for what term?
Consciousness. If you wish to participate in a
discussion it may be usefull to remember what
it's about, or at least a matter of good manners. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
By what happens on a macroscopic level. I am no
different, at the subatomic level, than any other
physical entity, but that doesn't mean that I am
no different altogether.
You are implying a fundumental difference
of the same entities and laws taken on a different
scale. I see no scientificly supported reasoning,
for now, that can justify such a claim.
Originally posted by Mentat
No it doesn't. It's paradoxical, and thus unusable.
A paradox is the end of a rational path.
Indeed. However, any rational path we ever
took so far(except one [;)]), has some end - a limmit.
Thus, this concept always applies so far. It's
usefullness is another issue and can be discussed
once all sides support this idea as likely, since
usefullness is a subjective term.
Originally posted by Mentat
Basically, I showed that trying to doubt everything
must include doubting the premise that tells
you to doubt everything. Thus you have no reason to
doubt everything, and (in fact) cannot take for
granted that you should do so.
Of course, so ? [;)]
Like I said to you once - there are turtles all the
way down... [:D] Wherever that is if at all... [g)]
That's why it's called a paradox - it makes no sense. [;)]

Doubt or shout ! [:D]

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

Causality. If you wish to participate in a
discussion it may be usefull to remember what
it's about, or at least a matter of good manners. [;)]


My sincerest apologies, but your side-stepping the main argument has confused me.


You are implying a fundumental difference
of the same entities and laws taken on a different
scale. I see no scientificly supported reasoning,
for now, that can justify such a claim.


How about the fact that Meteorology and Biology are entirely different practices. Think about it.


Of course, so ? [;)]
Like I said to you once - there are turtles all the
way down... [:D] Wherever that is if at all... [g)]
That's why it's called a paradox - it makes no sense. [;)]


Then what is it's use?

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
My sincerest apologies, but your side-stepping the
main argument has confused me.
Bloody hell ! I got cunfused with the other thread,
I meant CONSCIOUSNESS not causality. SORRY !!! [6)]
Originally posted by Mentat
How about the fact that Meteorology and Biology
are entirely different practices. Think about it.
I have. Thay are not different in terms of
physical laws. The are different in terms of the
concepts we use to discribe them (different
verbal/mathematical/whatever discriptions) because
they display different levels and types of
order within the very wide bounderies that these
laws allow for.

Anyway, I want to understand clearly once and for
all - Do you think that consciousness is something
beyond/in addition to the laws of physics or not ?
Originally posted by Mentat
Then what is it's use?
wuli dedicated whole threads to this. [;)]

One potential use, that I believe is indeed
very usefull (but I can't absolutely prove it [:D])
is that such a perspective means that you
must respect all views and opinions (because
tomorrow they might just turn out to be correct).
This is VERY important I think, both in life and
for a scientist, for example. Another potential
benefit is the seemingly likely chance that this
perspective will not allow you to make mistakes
when dealing with philosophical and sometimes
potentially other types of ideas. Because, as they
say - "Assumption is the mother of all f**k - ups." [:D].
(I can "hide" more letters in that expression if
someone here feels I should. [;)])

Live long and prosper.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
Because, as they say - "Assumption is the mother of all f**k - ups." [:D].
(I can "hide" more letters in that expression if
someone here feels I should. [;)])

What does "fork - up" mean?

(Sorry my english is not so good...)

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
What does "fork - up" mean?

(Sorry my english is not so good...)
Are you serious ? [:D]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Bloody hell ! I got cunfused with the other thread,
I meant CONSCIOUSNESS not causality. SORRY !!! [6)]


That's alright. I've made the same mistake (but I edited, or erased just before posting).


I have. Thay are not different in terms of
physical laws. The are different in terms of the
concepts we use to discribe them (different
verbal/mathematical/whatever discriptions) because
they display different levels and types of
order within the very wide bounderies that these
laws allow for.


That's the point. The point is not whether they are physically different, at the subatomic level, but whether they are different.


Anyway, I want to understand clearly once and for
all - Do you think that consciousness is something
beyond/in addition to the laws of physics or not ?


Objection, this question is entirely irrelevant the discussion [;)].


wuli dedicated whole threads to this. [;)]

One potential use, that I believe is indeed
very usefull (but I can't absolutely prove it [:D])
is that such a perspective means that you
must respect all views and opinions (because
tomorrow they might just turn out to be correct).
This is VERY important I think, both in life and
for a scientist, for example. Another potential
benefit is the seemingly likely chance that this
perspective will not allow you to make mistakes
when dealing with philosophical and sometimes
potentially other types of ideas.


I urge you to read the last few pages of "I think therefore I am". Manuel_Silvio tried to argue for total Uncertainty (the doubting of all things), and it just doesn't work. The truth of the matter is: it is impossible to take for granted that you shouldn't take anything for granted. This should be obvious, but some people are just trying to hard to see the truth. It's like in the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance", where he said: "It's like truth knocks on the door, and you scream 'go away, I'm looking for truth', and so it goes away".

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !
Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point. The point is not whether they are physically different, at the subatomic level, but whether they are different.

Explain, please.
Originally posted by Mentat
Objection, this question is entirely irrelevant
to the discussion [;)].
In light of what you appear to mean by consciousness
and purpose, I think it certainly is and could
save us a lot of time. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
The truth of the matter is: it is impossible to take
for granted that you shouldn't take anything for granted.
This should be obvious, ...
You do not understand what the PoE IS.
It is not true or false of something, it
can not be demonstrated by any clear claim
or argument. It can not be limmited or even
partially defined. If I say just one word of it
then I'm already denying its paradoxical nature.
This is the paradox of God, the Universe and
everything and that is precisely why the word
paradox is used (it's the closest thing we
have to call something totally undefinable).

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Explain, please.


They are different at the macroscopic level, as you have agreed. This means that they are different (as a result order, connections, and the actions of the subatomic particles that make them up working together), even if not at the subatomic level.


You do not understand what the PoE IS.
It is not true or false of something, it
can not be demonstrated by any clear claim
or argument. It can not be limmited or even
partially defined. If I say just one word of it
then I'm already denying its paradoxical nature.
This is the paradox of God, the Universe and
everything and that is precisely why the word
paradox is used (it's the closest thing we
have to call something totally undefinable).


This means that the PoE, as a concept, is entirely impossible. You have said it yourself (repeatedly, if you ask me) in just this (quoted) paragraph.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
They are different at the macroscopic level, as you have agreed. This means that they are different (as a result order, connections, and the actions of the subatomic particles that make them up working together), even if not at the subatomic level.

I agreed to that ?! [o)] [g)]
I did not agree, at any time as far as I can
remember, that there is some different, from
normal - physical theory, thing called consciousness.
Originally posted by Mentat
This means that the PoE, as a concept, is entirely impossible. You have said it yourself (repeatedly, if you ask me) in just this (quoted) paragraph.
Hmm... Maybe wuli's way works better at times. [;)]

"On the surface of the ocean one can see unconcievable
depth or just a reflection."
Me (copyrights reserved [:D])

P.S. I HATE most of these so-called meaningfull quotes. [:D]

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I agreed to that ?! [o)] [g)]
I did not agree, at any time as far as I can
remember, that there is some different, from
normal - physical theory, thing called consciousness.


I never said that you agreed to anything like that. I said that you agreed that physical objects are different at the macroscopic level, than at the subatomic.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I never said that you agreed to anything like that. I said that you agreed that physical objects are different at the macroscopic level, than at the subatomic.
That depends on how you define "different".
To me the difference is the same as the difference
between the pieces of a huge puzzle which has
infinite solutions using the same pieces and
provided that the pieces fully respect the laws
of physics once the puzzle is set in motion.
Nothing more.

Peace and long life.

[maximus]

Originally posted by heusdens
What is the purpose of a cat?

why, to make more cats, of course. isn't that our purpose as well?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
That depends on how you define "different".
To me the difference is the same as the difference
between the pieces of a huge puzzle which has
infinite solutions using the same pieces and
provided that the pieces fully respect the laws
of physics once the puzzle is set in motion.
Nothing more.


No offence, but your sentence needs re-wording, or there is no chance of it's making sense to me. Again, I don't mean to offend, I just can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
No offence, but your sentence needs re-wording, or there is no chance of it's making sense to me. Again, I don't mean to offend, I just can't make head or tail of what you're trying to say.
What's unclear ?
I basicly said that for me the only
difference is the scale and accordingly
complexity of the entities and laws at work.
No fundumental differences involved.

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
What's unclear ?
I basicly said that for me the only
difference is the scale and accordingly
complexity of the entities and laws at work.
No fundumental differences involved.

Live long and prosper.

Well, I disagree (and apologize for not having understood before). I don't think there would be such different branches of Science, if there was no difference between the behavior of something's fundamental particles, and the behavior of the [macroscopic] thing itself.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, I disagree (and apologize for not having understood before). I don't think there would be such different branches of Science, if there was no difference between the behavior of something's fundamental particles, and the behavior of the [macroscopic] thing itself.
Why is researching a single grain of sand called
chemistry and researching many sand dunes called
geology ?
Complexity. [;)]

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."
Leonardo Da Vinci

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Why is researching a single grain of sand called
chemistry and researching many sand dunes called
geology ?
Complexity. [;)]



You're just making my point. Complexity makes something of an qualitativly different order.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
You're just making my point. Complexity makes something of an qualitativly different order.
Not exactly. Mathematics (which is primarily
what modern science is) IS apparently capable of
predicting the higher complexity levels from
the lowest ones we have. It's just extremely
difficult for us today.

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Not exactly. Mathematics (which is primarily
what modern science is) IS apparently capable of
predicting the higher complexity levels from
the lowest ones we have. It's just extremely
difficult for us today.

Live long and prosper.

While this is true, it doesn't change anything. Mathematics can describe anything (for the purpose of this argument, let's not argue that point, please), but that doesn't mean that everything it describes is of the same qualitative order.